Interpretive Questions From a Visitor on Justification
1. Do you believe the accomplishments of the cross are complete and whole without the sinner’s reception of them?
It seems to me this is getting into the limited atonement issue, and my answer on that is: I don’t know. Past that, what particular accomplishments are you speaking of?
2. Is it the work of Christ alone that justifies sinners through faith, or the sinner’s faith in the work of Christ that justifies?
First of all, I reject the either/or premise of the question. Christ does NOT work ALONE in salvation/justification. There is NO salvation without the work of the Father and the Holy Spirit as well.
I also reject the either/or premise of ALL Christ or ALL our faith. It’s both. BUT, our faith is a gift from God (Phil. 1:29)—no gift, no faith, but after the gift is given—it is our faith. SO, it’s BOTH.
3. Does God regenerate sinners when they believe, or do sinners believe when God regenerates them (I am speaking causally not temporally)?
God first gives them the gift of faith—then they believe; again, Phil. 1:29.
4. Do you believe God imputes the perfect obedience of Christ to sinners and, on that basis, declares them to be righteous in his sight, or does he infuse grace to sinners in regeneration which in turn forms at least part of the basis of their justification? Is seems to me what Piper is saying is that the basis of justification must be only something outside the sinner, namely, the righteousness of Christ, never something inside the sinner,
regeneration and sanctification. Would you disagree with that statement if that is what he was saying? Justification must be only something outside the sinner, namely, the righteousness of Christ, never something inside the sinner, namely, regeneration and sanctification. Would you disagree with that statement if that is what he was saying?
Again, I reject the either/or premise of the question which is classic John Piper hermeneutics. The declaration HAS to be based on either imputed righteousness or infused righteousness/grace. In other words, all that is happening is justification imputed
or justification infused. What’s happening in us HAS to be justification related and the GROUND of justification.
If you really want to get into this deeply, the Forum, like Piper, says that everything MUST BE either the fruit of justification or the ground (root) of justification. Another either/or hermeneutic that has to see everything through justification. They would then answer your question 5 with an empathic “yes!” BUT only in regard to the new birth/regeneration being the fruit of ongoing/progressive justification. Any teaching that states that the new birth enables us to take part in spiritual growth is considered works righteousness because it “makes the fruit the root.” This is because in the Forum/New Calvinist doctrine, the declaration of righteousness isn’t enough to guarantee glorification, we must be declared righteous, produce perfect righteousness, and be found righteous in the end (eerily similar to SDA theology). Therefore, the only way this can be done is to devise a way in which the righteousness of Christ is presented for sanctification as well.
The concern of the Forum/New Calvinists is that God is saying we are righteous, when really we aren’t. So, somehow, a perfect righteousness has to be ongoing. Problem is, this excludes the law from us in regard to obedience because we are obviously unable to keep it perfectly. This all sounds logical until you need to come up with a system that doesn’t appear to be let go and let God theology or blatant antinomianism.
I’m not going to write a book here, orthodoxy appeals to 1John to answer what New Calvinists and the Forum propagate.
Piper’s right, justification is a legal declaration outside of us, but justification is not a singular prism that defines the entire salvation process. This all smells like SDA investigative theology, but I am withholding judgment on that till volume 2.
Secondly, Scripture regarding righteousness declared by God and based on faith is everywhere in the Bible, but one has to dig hard to make a case for the imputed righteousness of Christ in-particular. Why does Piper have to make this such a huuuuge issue? Hmmmm. Whatever righteousness is credited to our account is enough to get the job done. But I can tell you that I reject double imputation out of hand, but thouroughly understand why New Calvinists need it in order to make everything work.
5. Do you think it is possible to place great emphasis on the objective reality of the sufficiency of Christ’s redeeming work for the sinner’s justification without denying the reality and importance of regeneration?
It’s a mute point. How much we are to emphasize the gospel that saved us is described in the Bible. One way is the Lord’s Table. But be sure of this: a singular focus on justification as a means of spiritual growth is classic antinomianism.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Paul,
Thank you for your answers to these questions, I hope you don’t mind if I ask a few more questions prompted by your answers. On question #1, you are correct. This is directly related to limited atonement thought I would prefer to refer to this doctrine as definite atonement or particular redemption. I am not sure why you don’t know know how to answer the question. It seems to me, Jesus either accomplished redemption, justification, propitiation, and reconciliation for his elect people or he didn’t. My question to you is whether there is an objective accomplishment of those works or not? Perhaps a better way to ask the question is do the Scriptures refer to that work as an accomplishment or a mere provision for anyone who might take advantage of it by faith but that didn’t accomplish these blessings for anyone in particular?
I agree that the Father and the Spirit cannot be excluded when we talk about the work of redemption but Jesus is the redeemer in terms of his sacrifice. Given that no sinner will be justified apart from faith, my question is whether that faith, even faith given by God, forms any part of the basis of the sinner’s justification.
You speak of God granting us faith but what relation does that gift have to the work of regeneration?
You seem to say that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is difficult to find in Scripture. Is that really what you intended to say?
You don’t seem to like the idea of either/or but isn’t it true that we are either completely justified by God’s work of redemption or at least partially by our works?
I hope you understand what I am asking. Thank you again for your answers.
LikeLike
Thank you for your answers to these questions, I hope you don’t mind if I ask a few more questions prompted by your answers. On question #1, you are correct. This is directly related to limited atonement thought I would prefer to refer to this doctrine as definite atonement or particular redemption. I am not sure why you don’t know know how to answer the question. It seems to me, Jesus either accomplished redemption, justification, propitiation, and reconciliation for his elect people or he didn’t. My question to you is whether there is an objective accomplishment of those works or not? Perhaps a better way to ask the question is do the Scriptures refer to that work as an accomplishment or a mere provision for anyone who might take advantage of it by faith but that didn’t accomplish these blessings for anyone in particular?
I agree that the Father and the Spirit cannot be excluded when we talk about the work of redemption but Jesus is the redeemer in terms of his sacrifice. Given that no sinner will be justified apart from faith, my question is whether that faith, even faith given by God, forms any part of the basis of the sinner’s justification.
You speak of God granting us faith but what relation does that gift have to the work of regeneration?
You seem to say that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is difficult to find in Scripture. Is that really what you intended to say?
You don’t seem to like the idea of either/or but isn’t it true that we are either completely justified by God’s work of redemption or at least partially by our works?
I hope you understand what I am asking. Thank you again for your answers.
LikeLike
Paul,
Do I understand you correctly that you believe the sinner’s faith forms part of the basis of the sinner’s justification before God?
LikeLike
Not at all, for the tenth time, our work in sanctification has nothing to do with justification.
LikeLike
Do you not think justification might not be one of the mercies of God Paul had in mind in Romans 12:1?
LikeLike
By the way, If you haven’t noticed, we are discussing justification, not sanctification.
LikeLike
“By the way, If you haven’t noticed, we are discussing justification, not sanctification.”
I laughed out loud at this one. You guys only talk about Justification. That is Paul’s point!
LikeLike
Lydia,
To whom are you referring when you say “you guys?”
LikeLike
The New Calvinists are a bit like Jude in that they are so “eager to write about the salvation we share.”
However, unlike Jude, they have no concern for people who disqualify themselves through a license for immorality. Commands like, “What counts is keeping God’s commands,” are shoved under the rug because NC’s think like “dreamers” seeing no value in what God says. They think they are justified in ignoring God’s commands, seeing no link between faith and works. Can such faith save? No! If the “dreamers” that Jude writes about are justified in their sinning, then Jude is a very confused man. He should have only been focusing on justification by faith alone that’s all alone, which is just how NC’s are really seeing things. Isn’t that right? I mean, in practice, and behind the mask of denial.
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike